snark: a (well-deserved) attitude of mocking irreverence and sarcasm

August 02, 2019

I thought I couldn't get any more irritated at the Salem City Council and City officials, and I was plenty mad before, but now I'm way more pissed off.

I just learned that those officials have signed a contract with the Salem Alliance Church to lease a building owned by the church for a temporary public library, even though City Council rules allow for reconsideration of any council decision at the next meeting, which is August 12.

The City Council voted to approve the lease on a 6-1 vote at the July 22 council meeting. But this was a hugely controversial issue. And two councilors were absent, Tom Andersen and Sally Cook. Jackie Leung was the sole sane vote in opposition to this crazy idea.

There are alternative locations to house a temporary library, such as Liberty Plaza, which was one of the top three choices of the Library Renovation Subcommittee. Virtually everybody who submitted written or verbal testimony to the City Council was against using the church-owned Capital Press building.

And people have been contacting the Mayor and city councilors urging that the City Council reconsider approval of the Salem Alliance Church lease agreement at the council's next meeting on August 12. Reconsideration is allowed by a City Council rule.

Yet a little while ago I learned that City staff went ahead and signed the Salem Alliance Church contract, thereby taking away the ability for this issue to be reconsidered by the City Council -- essentially screaming a loud Screw you! at supporters of LGBTQ rights in Salem.

Jackie Leung, the sole no vote on the use of Salem Alliance Church property for the temporary Library, kindly responded to my questions about whether anything could be done at this point. She said:

"Because I voted no, I am not able to ask for a reconsideration. One of the councilors, such as Councilor Kaser, who voted yes, will need to call it up. I can issue a plea at the council meeting for reconsideration, though no one may do so.

It also depends on if city council already signed a lease with SAC. If it has already been signed, I am afraid that there is no way to stop it from moving forward. As a frequent library user, it also concerns me about the use of the Capitol Press and what it means to our community.

Thank you for your email. Please continue reaching out to Councilor Kaser. Perhaps she will be willing to request a reconsideration if it is not too late."

Then I found out that the lease has been already signed. But before that, I contacted Councilor Cara Kaser (Ward 1, in which I live). Here is what she wrote:

"I hope you either watched live or the recording of City Council meeting when this issue was discussed. Councilor Chris Hoy summed up my position on this issue exactly. If you didn’t get a chance to watch Councilor Hoy’s remarks, I hope that you will.

The Library sub-committee charged with finding a temporary build to house the library collection recommended this location after going through several other properties. For one reason and another, the former Capital Press building was the only feasible site to relocate the library and met the sub-committee’s criteria for relocation.

The building is owned by a religious organization but the building itself is not a religious building (i.e. it’s not a church, sanctuary, chapel, etc.). Also, the building will be under lease and operated by the City, and not by a religious organization.

The City will follow it’s own ordinances and codes of conduct while the library is at this temporary location, just as it follows rules now at the permanent library site. Because of this, I believe that the temporary location for the library will be a welcoming and accepting place for all members of our community, just like our permanent library location is now."

Since I already knew that the property was owned by SAC and not a "religious" building, the only thing to take away from Councilor Kaser's comment is that her position was the same as Hoy's.

And Hoy's pertinent comment was that basically "if we (the City) scrutinizes all entities that the City does business with, it is a slippery slope"

...And my comment regarding that is that if the City does NOT look at the policies of entities, then THAT is the real slippery slope.

Would the City do business with an entity with an avowed white nationalist agenda? Would the City do business with an entity that was against marriage between different races? I think not.

So why are LGBTQIA people, their friends, allies, and loved ones being thrown under the bus? Answer that please, "progressive" council members.

Great question.

Councilors Hoy, Kaser, and Ausec, each of whom claims to be progressive, along with Mayor Bennett and councilors Lewis and Nanke, all knew full well that the Human Rights Commission and LGBTQ community in Salem understood that the temporary library was going to be operated by City staff, not by the church.

That was irrelevant to supporters of LGBTQ rights. Which makes what Councilor Kaser said above, and what Councilor Hoy said at the July 22 council meeting, also irrelevant.

What mattered is what Stephens said: the Salem Alliance Church opposes LGBTQ rights.

Yet not only does the City of Salem see no problem with paying almost $500,000 to the Salem Alliance Church to house a temporary library that won't be used by members of the LGBTQ community and their supporters, it rushed ahead with signing the lease contract in order to prevent public opinion from forcing a reconsideration vote at the August 12 council meeting.

UPDATE: I just realized that there's a decent chance one or more of the six members of the City Council who voted to go ahead with leasing the church owned library for a temporary library pressed City staff to sign the Salem Alliance Church lease before the next council meeting to avoid the spectacle of a reconsideration request being discussed at the meeting.

Also, here's a cogent comment from ardent library supporter Jim Scheppke that he left on a Facebook page where I shared this blog post:

"I agree with Brian that the City staff should have waited until after the August 12th meeting to sign the lease to allow Councilors Cook and Andersen to weigh in on this issue on behalf of their constituents. We heard at the last meeting from substitute Councilor Evan White that Councilor Cook was opposed to leasing the church property. I would not be surprised to learn that Councilor Andersen is also opposed.

There was very little discussion of the issue at the last meeting because it came at the end of a long meeting and the Councilors were clearly rushing through the end of the agenda as they often do. A decision that affects a large portion of the community (LGBTQ citizens and their friends, family and supporters and others who care deeply about human rights) should not be railroaded. I also disagree that the church building was the only viable choice. I think that's false. It was the cheapest choice."

Disgusting. Outrageous. Shameful. And those are the least profane words that spring to mind.

Yesterday I paid $476.80 to the City of Salem for the required fee to get public records related to the selection of the church-owned Capital Press building for a temporary library.

I submitted the public records request because I figured there was a good chance I'd get the documents prior to the August 12 City Council meeting where a reconsideration might have been discussed.

I figured wrong, failing to anticipate that City officials would forestall reconsideration by rushing ahead with signing the contract, even though the library won't start moving into a temporary location until December.

However, I'm still glad that I'm getting the documents and emails, because I believe the public needs to understand as clearly as possible how this horrible choice of the Capital Press building happened.

February 19, 2019

Driving home from the West Salem Neighborhood Association meeting last night, I pondered the weirdly wonderful discussion of how the City Council killed the Third Bridge on February 11, and what to do next about downtown-area traffic congestion.

Salem City Councilors Cara Kaser and Jim Lewis bridged some political differences Monday night, pledging to work together to solve the city’s congestion woes after staking opposing views last week about the Salem River Crossing.

The two are the only councilors whose wards fan over West Salem, home to some of the most vocal supporters of the third bridge.

Kaser joined five other councilors in voting against the project and found herself the subject of social media murmurs of a recall. But she shrugged it off, saying she heard more kudos than condemnation.

“Of course there were people who were negative toward me, but the thank yous outweighed the people who were upset,” said Kaser, elected in 2016.

Being a blogger, I'm going to take a more personal approach in describing the meeting -- which struck me as being somewhat akin to a three-act play with different plot lines in each portion of the production.

Act 1: Salem Bridge Solutions fails to read the crowd. After dealing with some other business, Jim Allhiser, the chair of the neighborhood association, opened up discussion of the City Council decision to kill the Salem River Crossing, or Third Bridge, project on a 6-3 vote. His initial remarks were warm and fuzzy, saying "We're all neighbors. We all want to do what's best for the community."

But things went downhill from there. Way downhill.

His first mistake was to fail to mention that a propaganda PowerPoint presentation was going to be shown.

After silently fumbling at his computer in an attempt to get it going, eventually it started to play, with an eerily disembodied voice singing the praises of the Third Bridge and insulting the six councilors who dared to bring this Billion Dollar Boondoggle to a well-deserved end.

As false statements about the bridge project began to multiply, the audience grew restless. Many people were there to support Councilor Kaser and her five progressive colleagues on the City Council who voted against proceeding with a Third Bridge.

Apparently Mike Evans, co-leader of Salem Bridge Solutions, who created the presentation, assumed that most of those attending the neighborhood association meeting would have their (metaphorical) pitchforks out, prepared to skewer Kaser and the other bridge-denying councilors.

This is the problem with a canned presentation.

If Evans or another Third Bridge supporter had been standing at the podium and speaking live, they would have seen and sensed that a large proportion of the crowd wasn't there to praise them. This screenshot of a recording of the meeting shows only two people wearing the iconic green Salem Bridge Solutions t-shirts -- the Evans brothers.

Quite a change from the February 11 City Council meeting, which featured a sea of green.

So last night got off to a shaky start from the perspective of Salem Bridge Solutions. Act 1 ended with Third Bridge supporters having to deal with the aftermath of a recorded slide show presentation that got bad reviews from about half of the audience.

Act 2: Mostly polite dialogue replaces one-sided propaganda. With the Salem Bridge Solutions slide show debacle out of the way, Allhiser did a good job introducing people who had signed up to speak for a maximum of three minutes about how they felt about the City Council decision to kill the bridge.

I didn't count the number for and against that decision. My impression is that more were for the Third Bridge, but not dramatically more.

Opponents of the Salem River Crossing made good points, as did supporters of the project. This was a welcome change from the Salem Bridge Solutions approach of talking loudly with no serious attempts at finding common ground with those opposed to the Third Bridge.

Mike Evans did speak for three minutes in his typically annoying manner.

He referred to the six councilors as "a few misguided people who call themselves progressives." Evans also said his group was ready to recall all or some of the councilors, along with engaging in an effort to make West Salem its own city.

Here's some of the things people said that elicited a right-on inside my head when I heard them:

-- The City of Salem should put a halt to further housing developments in West Salem until infrastructure catches up to population growth in that area.

-- Dreams of getting a lot of money from the state legislature for a new bridge need to be tempered by the fact that a Columbia River Crossing project to replace the I-5 bridge between Portland and Vancouver will be a higher priority.

-- Making the Center Street bridge earthquake-safe needs to occur as soon as possible now that the Salem River Crossing project is dead.

-- Marine Drive needs to be constructed now that it no longer can be viewed as part of the Third Bridge project.

Act 3: Elected officials show that a disagreement doesn't equal discord. There were quite a few elected officials at the meeting: Salem city councilors Jim Lewis and Cara Kaser; Salem Mayor Chuck Bennett; State representative Paul Evans; and a Polk County commissioner whose name I didn't get. (May have forgotten some others.)

Lewis and Bennett spoke about how disappointed they were with the decision to kill the Third Bridge.

However, they weren't bitter or insulting like Mike Evans of Salem Bridge Solutions was. Pleasingly, they expressed a willingness to work with opponents of the Third Bridge to find common ground on moving forward with a different sort of new bridge project.

The two councilors and Mayor Chuck Bennett joined more than 100 people in attending the West Salem Neighborhood Association meeting Monday night at the West Salem Roth’s conference center, eager to debate the city’s congestion problems and solutions old and new.

After listening to citizens speak, all three officials took the chance to say they hoped to work together on new ideas.

“I’m willing to work with anyone — anyone — who is committed to help address our mobility and congestion issues via an additional bridge across the Willamette River,” Lewis said.

“I really am encouraged. I think you can count on Lewis and Kaser and the other councilors to move forward on this,” said Bennett. “We’ve got a ways to go but I hope we can keep talking about it. I really hope you stay engaged.”

Kudos to Jim Lewis and Chuck Bennett for being so positive, given the pain they felt at seeing the demise of a project they strongly believed in. I found their remarks to be honest, forthright, and inspiring.

Which I guess isn't all that surprising, because elected officials are different from the rest of us in these politically polarized times. Meaning, they have to sit in a room and work closely with individuals they disagree with -- while others interested in politics can sit in their corner of the political spectrum with like-minded people.

Bottom line: I walked away from the neighborhood association meeting feeling way more positive than when I walked in.

I was expecting more discord than actually transpired. Once Act 1 was over, the rest of the meeting featured people with a wide variety of views about a new bridge across the Willamette who generally spoke politely without demonizing the other side.

It's too early to say whether Paul Evans' proposal for a regional Special Bridge District will turn out to be a viable way to move forward with planning for a wiser approach to a new bridge. But it may be. I agreed with what I recall Cara Kaser saying: we need another bridge, but it should be outside of Salem.

Meaning, a regional bridge funded by people in several counties. A major problem with the Salem River Crossing was that it was intended to be a regional bridge, yet with Salem residents being expected to foot most of the cost to build it.

Now I'm even more convinced of this. There's considerable enthusiasm for exploring a different sort of new bridge across the Willamette. Embarking on recalls would be a major distraction from this effort, with little chance of success.

Lastly, I recall someone expressing surprise that suddenly progressive members of the City Council are sounding all positive about another bridge across the Willamette, after being so opposed to the Salem River Crossing project.

But that sentiment was on display at the February 11 council meeting, where "I'm in favor of a bridge, just not this bridge" was heard fairly frequently.

Which reminds me of my divorce from my first wife, Susan, in 1989. After we split up, I got married again -- and soon. After all, I was in favor of being married (as was Susan), just not to this person.

What I'm talking about in the title of this blog post is what happens next in Salem.

Ideally, those fervently in favor of the now-defunct Salem River Crossing project and those fervently opposed to it will come together to work on ways to reduce rush hour congestion in the downtown area that don't involve spending upwards of half a billion dollars on another bridge.

This effort should include lobbying efforts at the State Capitol to make sure that the money already earmarked for making the Center Street bridge earthquake-safe is spent on this as soon as possible.

But I'm worried that this isn't going to happen without some serious work by Mayor Chuck Bennett and Councilor Jim Lewis (who represents most of West Salem) to channel the anger of the Salem Bridge Solutions folks in a positive direction.

Earlier today Salem Bridge Solutions, the group that has been pushing hardest for a Third Bridge, put up a Facebook post that is pretty much the exact opposite of what needs to happen.

Now, I readily admit there's a chance (albeit seemingly a slim one) that "fixing this travesty" and "organizing something soon" could mean something other than, say, working on a recall of all or some of the six progressive city councilors who voted against continuing on with the Salem River Crossing Project.

But a recall is mentioned in some of the comments on this post. And so far the Evans brothers haven't shown themselves to be anything other than single-minded passionate -- fanatic might be a better word -- advocates for a Third Bridge.

2. They didn't build any bridges. Ironically for a group advocating a bridge, they did not work hard to build bridges to voters in other wards. You know, the people that would have to help pay for the bridge. Their advocacy was an inside game of lobbying and pressuring the City Council members. Bridge leaders ran no radio or cable ads, sent no mail, and knocked (to my knowledge) on no doors in wards outside of ward 8. If you want a community to spend $400 million plus to help you out of your (traffic) jam, it's best to persuade them to support by explaining why they have either a moral responsibility or self-interested reason to do so. Bridge advocates didn't bother.

3. Their leadership was divisive and bullying. The Evans brothers became the face of the Build the Bridge effort. They came across as mean, bullying, and disruptive. Yes, some people can get away with that (again, think DC), but it didn't play in Salem. Enough said.

Today someone told me that Councilor Cara Kaser is planning on coming to the February 18 West Salem Neighborhood Association meeting publicized in the Salem Bridge Solutions post (that group engineered a takeover of the association, so now controls the agenda).

Since Kaser was singled out for special criticism because she represents part of West Salem, the person who told me she was coming to the meeting worried that she might need police protection. Hopefully this worry was overblown.

Regardless, I'm hoping that both Mayor Bennett and Councilor Lewis will do what they can between now and February 18 to urge the leaders/members of Salem Bridge Solutions to work cooperatively with all of the City Council -- including the six progressives who voted against the Salem River Crossing proposal -- to find common ground.

A City of Salem task force has come up with numerous ways to reduce rush-hour congestion in the downtown area. Salem Bridge Solutions should involve itself with making those improvements a reality. And there's considerable openness toward exploring a different location for a new bridge.

Sure, it will take many years for another bridge project to come to fruition. But backers of the Salem River Crossing need to come to grips with the fact that it is dead. Nothing will bring it back to life, including attempts to recall the councilors who voted against it.

Hopefully both Mayor Bennett and Councilor Lewis will come to the February 18 West Salem Neighborhood Association meeting. They should sit next to Councilor Kaser and vow to work with her, and with her progressive colleagues, on ways to address the traffic concerns raised at last Monday's City Council meeting.

Some of those concerns were valid. Some weren't. Through respectful open discussion, people in Salem can do their best to bridge the divide that currently separates our community.

I understand the anger and disappointment that backers of the Salem River Crossing felt after the 6-3 City Council vote to terminate the project. It hurts to see a cause that you deeply believe in go down in flames. But life goes on. Negativity needs to turn to positivity.

The February 18 meeting is a great place to start.

I'll end by noting that I found the Facebook post by Jim Allhiser, chair of the West Salem Neighborhood Association, to be highly questionable.

I've been to NA meetings where both sides of a political issue have made presentations, but what Salem Bridge Solutions is doing is so blatantly one-sided, I'm wondering if it fits under the purpose of neighborhood associations -- since they are supposed to represent everybody who lives in a certain part of Salem, not just those with a particular viewpoint.

November 26, 2018

Observing via CCTV the Salem City Council debate tonight whether to move ahead with the Salem River Crossing, or Third Bridge, felt like I was watching a movie where you know the bad guy is going to be killed at some point, but you know that isn't going to happen until a lot of drama and close calls have built up the suspense.

Like I said yesterday in "Jim Lewis dreams the impossible Third Bridge dream," it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that Lewis' motion to have City staff respond to issues raised in a legal setback that remanded (sent back) the Council's 2016 approval of a new bridge was going to fail 5-4.

After all, the five progressive councilors are on record as opposing what I like to call the Billion Dollar Boondoggle. There's no way they were going to break their campaign promises and vote to move forward with the Salem River Crossing project.

(Come January, their numbers will grow to six, when Jackie Leung replaces Steve McCoid on the City Council.)

What I wasn't sure about was whether the strategy of the No 3rd Bridge Five would be to give the Third Bridge the final death that it deserves at this meeting, or whether the death throes of the bridge would be strung out. It turned out to be the latter, since a substitute motion by Tom Andersen was approved after Lewis' motion failed.

Andersen's motion calls for the City Council to hold a work session on the Salem River Crossing in January 2019. Then the consensus seemed to be that either a vote on the legal remand would happen at the next Council meeting, or perhaps in February.

This seems to be a smart move.

If the five progressives had killed the bridge project tonight, that would have looked a lot like a football team running up the score in the fourth quarter when they were already way ahead. Bad form. Tonight lots of people testified in favor of a Third Bridge. Emotions ran high.

So what Tom Andersen and Cara Kaser talked about was having a work session to review all of the materials related to the Salem River Crossing prior to voting whether to address the issues in the remand.

If the City Council votes against addressing those issues, the Third Bridge apparently will be dead -- Lewis said that if the City of Salem doesn't handle the remand issue by September 2019, the project will be shut down, since a draft Environmental Impact Statement needed to move the project forward requires that all approvals be obtained by that time.

(I'm pretty sure the date was September 2019. It might be earlier.)

The January work session will give both supporters and opponents of the Salem River Crossing on the City Council a forum to put forth their best arguments to either keep the project alive, or kill it.

My bet is that it will end up being killed, since opponents have by far the better arguments.

As Kaser pointed out tonight, likely there is a need for another bridge across the Willamette. However, the current Third Bridge plan is for a very expensive regional bridge aimed largely at speeding traffic through Salem to Portland, the coast, and such, rather than a local bridge aimed at reducing rush hour congestion between West Salem and downtown.

And Kaser also observed that Salem residents would be expected to foot most of the bill for a Third Bridge, even though it would be a regional bridge, not a local bridge.

Lewis seemed to see the handwriting on the wall after his motion failed.

Mayor Bennett did his best to put a positive spin on the approval of Andersen's substitute motion, but as the saying goes, this was just putting lipstick on a pig. The No 3rd Bridge Five, who are soon to become the No 3rd Bridge Six, have the power on the City Council.

They will use the January work session to put forward some excellent reasons why the Salem River Crossing project should be killed. Then, at a subsequent City Council meeting, almost certainly it will be.

Lastly, I believe it was Tom Andersen who reminded his fellow city councilors of what happened in December 2016, when five conservative members of the City Council voted to more the project forward by approving an Urban Growth Boundary expansion the month before three newly elected progressives were going to join the Council.

Tonight five clueless members of the Salem City Council voted to move ahead with the unneeded, unwanted, and unpaid-for Third Bridge, a.k.a. the Salem River Crossing.

...Now, one would think that this City Council meeting would be a joyous occasion for supporters of the Salem River Crossing. It marked a step forward for the Third Bridge. Yet exactly nobody spoke in favor of it at the public hearing (which wasn't very public, because nobody other than city councilors could speak during it).

I saw downcast eyes and morose expressions from the Billion Dollar Boondoggle Five.

City Manager Steve Powers also didn't look very happy, perhaps because I suspect he agrees with much, if not all, of what Councilor Tom Andersen said in his animated six minute explanation of why he was voting NO on the Urban Growth Boundary expansion needed to accommodate the Salem River Crossing bridgeheads.

Below you'll find a video of Andersen's remarks. I urge you to watch it. This was a great example of the proverbial speaking truth to power.

I especially liked his oh-so-true observation that the City Council was rushing to get a vote on the UGB expansion before the end of the year because three newly elected city councilors who are against the Third Bridge, and said so in their campaigns, will take office in 2017.

So the vote tonight was a last gasp attempt by the Chamber of Commerce-backed councilors -- Bennett, McCoid, Nanke, Lewis, Bednarz -- to kiss up to the Powers That Be in this town. They used special interest money to get elected, and they paid back those special interests with their "yes" votes for the Billion Dollar Boondoggle.

January 04, 2017

Tonight there was a packed house in the City Council chambers for the swearing-in of newly elected Mayor Chuck Bennett and four city councilors: Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, Matt Ausec, and Brad Nanke.

Bennett and Nanke were already on the City Council (Bennett moved to Mayor from his Ward 1 seat now held by Kaser). So the big turnout mostly was due to progressives wanting to celebrate the election of Kaser, Cook, and Ausec.

The three of them join fellow progressive Tom Andersen to form a much-needed counterweight to the conservative majority that has dominated the City Council for quite a while. Now the tide has turned to a 4-4 progressive/conservative split, with one seat vacant.

(I'm putting Mayor Bennett in the conservative camp, because that's the way he's been voting on important issues such as the Billion Dollar Boondoggle, otherwise known as the Third Bridge/Salem River Crossing.)

So as I watched the smiles, laughter, good cheer, and platitudes fill the Council chambers during the speechifying and thank you's, I kept thinking about what wasn't being said, yet was on the minds of everybody with a sense of how the political winds are shifting in Salem.

Before Ward 6 councilor Daniel Benjamin resigned last November, which spurred an intense discussion of racism and bigotry in this town, it was felt that the next two years would be marked by a 5-4 conservative majority on the City Council (again, putting Bennett in the conservative camp, where he certainly seems to belong).

Progressives were looking forward to 2018 as their opportunity to vote out Bennett, Benjamin, Jim Lewis, and Steve McCoid. Taking any of those seats would tilt the balance of power in a left-leaning direction.

Now, though, all eyes are on a special March 14 election to fill the Ward 6 seat. Today the Statesman Journal reported that four candidates have filed for that city council position: Jonathan Crow, Greg Peterson, Christopher Hoy and Timothy Perkins.

I don't know anything about Crow and Perkins.

Peterson has a Facebook page promoting his candidacy. From what I've heard, he is the Chamber of Commerce candidate in the election. Which in my opinion is exactly what Ward 6 doesn't need. Daniel Benjamin was a Chamber pick; he turned out to be a bad city councilor.

Interestingly, Peterson is a buddy of Benjamin, as reported by KATU in "Close friend runs for seat of former city councilor who resigned amid racial controversy."

Now Greg Peterson, a businessman who says he considers Benjamin like family, is running to replace him.

“We’re different," Peterson, who is African-American, told KATU on Monday. "We have different views on life. But I’ve never felt anything negative from him as far as race.”

Peterson, who was born and raised in Compton, California, said Benjamin was the first person he met when he moved to Salem in 1991.

“His mom and dad are my daughter’s godparents," said Peterson. “His sister is my sister, his niece is my niece. His dog and cat was my dog and cat. We’re just like one family.”

Well, it'll be interesting to see if Peterson will be able to make his close friendship with Benjamin into an asset in the Ward 6 race. The KATU story quotes Peterson as saying that Benjamin "never displayed anything to me ever that seemed to be racist or hateful."

Many people in Salem, though, would argue with that assessment of Benjamin. [Update: I've included several KATU TV stories about the Daniel Benjamin uproar.]

Progressive Salem is endorsing Christopher Hoy (above), who also has a Facebook page. Hoy is Chief Deputy for the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office. His bio on the Sheriff's Office "Leadership Team" page says that Hoy has a bachelor's degree from Willamette University in Political Science, so he brings an interesting background to the Ward 6 race.

I'll end with some lighter moments I captured at the swearing-in ceremony.

I used my iPhone to record videos of each newly-elected person's "thank you" remarks after being sworn in. Ward 7 city councilor Sally Cook wins the prize for Most Entertaining, largely due to her expressive youngest daughter being both thrilled and reluctant to be photographed with her mom, dad, and Governor Brown.

All the seats in the City Council chamber were filled by the time I got there, so I had to stand by the after-swearing-in snack table. I was struck by the juxtaposition of a carrot cake cautiously labeled "No Nuts" and a tasty-looking bowl of the sometimes dangerous food a few inches away.

Ward 1 City Councilor Cara Kaser walked by and posed for a photo. I got her laughing by saying, "Congratulations! You now can look forward to four years of no pay and countless hours of boring meetings."

Bagpipes!

I always find them funny, because my Uncle Jack played them and he was a notorious jokester. Also, cows would moo when he bagpiped away. He tried to get me to learn how to play, sending me a chanter (mini-bagpipe) when I was young, but my musical ineptness prevented me from becoming a bagpiper.

To which my wife and neighbors likely would say, 'Thank god."

Lastly, at one point newly-departed Mayor Anna Peterson used one of her favorite descriptions of Salem during her term in office: Collaboration Capital. Someone I know who was standing behind me said, "Time to barf."

He was right. Ex-Mayor Peterson presided over a hugely uncollaborative City Hall administration. Her guiding principle was "my way or the highway." There were few attempts to genuinely involve citizens in policy decisions before they were decided upon.

May 17, 2016

"The oligarchy is dead," a friend said to me tonight at Shotski's Woodfired Pizza as we applauded Sally Cook's decisive Ward 7 victory over current City Councilor Warren Bednarz -- who was endorsed by the Salem Chamber of Commerce and other special interests.

The Marion County Democrats put on a Primary Election Night party. Even though the races for Salem Mayor and four City Council seats are nominally non-partisan, everyone knew that the battle for the contested seats was between the Progressives and the Establishment, a.k.a. the Oligarchy.

I'm really happy that three out of the four creative, innovative, forward-looking candidates appear to have won. Here's Cara Kaser celebrating her victory. She's going to be a hugely better representative of the citizens in Ward 1, which includes Salem's downtown, than Chuck Bennett.

Bennett, who vastly outspent his opponent owing to his support from special interest PACs (political action committees), faces an interesting two year term as Mayor.

He got the Chamber of Commerce endorsement because he repeated the "jobs, jobs, jobs" mantra that the Salem Oligarchy likes.

And he favors the unneeded billion dollar Third Bridge that promises to enrich developers and construction companies while taking big bucks out of the pockets of ordinary citizens (get ready for a $1.50 toll each way on the current bridges and new bridge if Bennett gets his way; plus a property tax and gas tax also will be levied to pay for this boondoggle).

Yet Bennett will have to deal with four progressives on the nine-member Salem City Council: newly-elected Kaser, Ausec, and Cook, plus current councilor Tom Andersen. Also, I've heard progressives say that they think Bennett will show his liberal side once he becomes Mayor.

So Chuck Bennett is going to have to tread a delicate line between irritating the Chamber/Oligarchy types who supplied the big bucks to get him elected, and the Progressive types who obviously are on the upswing in Salem -- given the outcome of the three contested City Council races: wins for Kaser, Ausec, and Cook.

(As I write this at 10 pm on election night, Matt Ausec is only leading Tiffany Partridge by 94 votes, with one precinct in his ward not reporting; but since that precinct probably has about 250 votes total, it's unlikely that Partridge can beat him. Here's a photo of Ausec, on the left, outside Shotski's, listening to Progressive Salem leader Tina Calos and others discussing the first batch of election results that had him ahead.)

The defeat of Councilor Warren Bednarz by Sally Cook is especially satisfying for me and other progressives. And, I'd expect, especially disturbing for the Salem Oligarchy. Bednarz not only was an incumbent, he had the backing of the Chamber of Commerce and other special interests.

And Bednarz didn't only lose. He was crushed.

With six of the seven precincts in Ward 7 reporting (see p. 22), Cook is leading 61% to 39%. This is a sign that progressives are on the march in Salem. People Power won over Money Power in this election, as it hopefully will in 2018 and beyond.

I'll end with an observation about turnout.

With 84% of the precincts reporting in the city-wide Mayor's race, it looks like the final voter participation rate will be around 43%. Bennett is winning over Smith 61% to 38%. Thus he is the choice of 61% of 43% or so of the registered voters, which means about 26% of potential voters are electing Bennett.

The best way to reassure citizens that elections truly reflect the voice of the people is to have almost everybody vote. Voting rates vary widely in different parts of Salem. In North Salem's Ward 5, the Ausec-Patridge race, it looks like only about 30% of registered voters are going to cast a ballot.

Sure, I'm happy that it looks like Progressive Salem candidate Ausec is going to win.

But I'd be even happier if he was elected by more than 16% or so of the registered voters in his ward (53% of 30%, or thereabouts). There's got to be a way to get people in the lower-income areas of Salem more engaged in local politics and elections.

If the Chamber of Commerce really wanted to show that it is more than a special interest lobbying group, it would join forces with Progressive Salem and other civic organizations in an Everybody Counts in Salem movement -- an effort to bring people currently being left out of this town's political life into the citizen participation mainstream.

There was buzz among the liberals at tonight's Marion County Democrats election party when Dan Clem, CEO of the Salem Chamber of Commerce, showed up at Shotski's. Not at a table reserved for party participants (there was a $10 donation requested), but at a table elevated above the main floor.

Kind of fitting for a leading member of the Salem Oligarchy. But today's election reduced the power of the Oligarchy considerably, which is highly positive for ordinary people in this town.

Over the last several weeks when I've been out canvassing, I've heard from too many people who have been given negative misinformation about me by my opponent's campaign. Fortunately, I've been able to meet a lot of people through canvassing and give people correct info about me.

This hurts me personally, as I've actually known my opponent for several years and I had hoped we could have avoided this kind of behavior. It's actually something that I would like to talk with him about after the election, because I think it's important that he knows how it's made me feel. I think we all need to remember that these are volunteer positions and that we will all be working together long after the election and regardless of the results. It can be easy to get wrapped up in the heat of a campaign, but in the end, we're still in this together and will need to be respectful toward one another.

One of the pieces of misinformation that's been circulating is my campaign backers. To help set the record straight, here are the breakdowns for my campaign finances and my opponent’s campaign finances as of May 15th.

I’m proud to be backed by people! I think it’s pretty clear that the my campaign is backed by individual people who want a forward-thinking, progressive City Councilor who will truly only work for people to help make Salem a place where they want to live. I have really pushed myself over the last few months to meet as many people as possible where they are by going door-to-door canvassing and through house parties.

The majority of my campaign contributions (59%) come from individual people who support me; a minority of my campaign contributions (41%) come from PACs. Here’s how my campaign finances breakdown:

The majority of my opponent’s campaign contributions (77%) come from special business interest PACs and contributors. A minority of my opponent’s campaign contributions (23%) come from individual people, including people who don’t live in Oregon.

I took a look at the ORESTAR reports for Kaser and Kailuweit. It sure seems that Kaser has her facts straight. Kailuweit is backed by special interests/PAC contributions to a much greater extent than Kaser is.

So Kaser deserves her "She's Working for You" slogan. Kailuweit would work for somebody if elected, but given where his campaign money is coming from, it's likely special interests would get much more of his attention.